네덜란드 청소년의 87%가 사춘기 억제제에서 교차 성호르몬으로 이어감, 불쾌감이 줄어 중단한 사람은 3.5%

성별 불쾌감으로 성선자극호르몬 분비 호르몬 유사체 치료를 받은 청소년의 경과

Authors: Tessa Brik, Lieke J.J.J. Vrouenraets, Martine C. de Vries, Sabine E. Hannema
Journal: Archives of Sexual Behavior
Year: 2020
Source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01660-8

Summary

Puberty blockers are often described as a "pause button" that gives teenagers time to think about their gender. This study from one Dutch clinic checked what actually happened to the 143 teens who started blockers there between 2010 and 2018. Almost all (87%) went on to cross-sex hormones, usually within a year. Only nine stopped blockers, and five of those (3.5%) no longer wanted gender treatment. The authors say the high rate of moving on may be because the clinic only chose teens very likely to continue. They openly say their study cannot tell whether blockers themselves make teens more likely to stay on the medical path. Many trans boys started blockers at about 16, when puberty was mostly over. Tracking stopped once hormones began, so the study tells us nothing about long-term health or later detransition.

Key findings

레이던 클리닉에서 충분한 나이이고 사춘기가 충분히 진행된 10대 214명 중 143명(67%)이 사춘기 차단제에 적합하다고 판단되었고, 모두 2010년 11월부터 2018년 1월 사이에 시작했습니다.
125명(87%)은 차단제를 통상 10개월 쓴 뒤 반대 성 호르몬으로 넘어갔습니다. 5명은 호르몬에는 아직 어렸고 6명은 다른 클리닉으로 옮겼습니다.
9명(6%)이 차단제를 중단했습니다. 그중 4명은 여전히 성별 치료를 원했고 부작용, 기분 문제, 현실적인 이유로 중단했습니다. 1명은 다시 시작했고 3명은 나중에 호르몬이나 생리를 멈추는 약을 시작했습니다.
5명(3.5%)은 더 이상 성별 치료를 원하지 않았습니다. 이유로는 논바이너리라고 느낀 것, 사랑에 빠진 것, 감정을 탐색하는 데 방해가 되는 개인적 또는 가족 문제가 있었습니다.
20명의 10대는 클리닉의 계획이 요구한 것보다 오래 차단제를 유지했습니다. 대부분 불안정한 가족 또는 사회생활, 자폐나 우울 같은 다른 상태, 또는 현실적인 이유 때문이었습니다.
통상 시작 나이는 트랜스 여아 15세, 트랜스 남아 16세였으므로 많은 이들이 사춘기 후반이나 그 이후에 시작했고, 그때는 차단제가 신체적으로 하는 일이 거의 없습니다.
저자들은 이 연구가 차단제 자체가 성별 불쾌감이 이어질 가능성을 높이는지 보여줄 수 없음을 인정합니다.

Abstract

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) are recommended as initial treatment for adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria, providing time to follow gender identity development and consider further treatment wishes without distress caused by unwanted pubertal changes. This has been described as an extended diagnostic phase. However, there are also concerns about the physical, neurocognitive, and psychosocial effects of this treatment. In this retrospective study, we document trajectories after the initiation of GnRHa and explore reasons for extended use and discontinuation of GnRHa. Treatment was considered appropriate in 143 (67%) of the 214 adolescents eligible for GnRHa treatment by virtue of their age/pubertal status, and all started GnRHa (38 transgirls, 105 transboys; median age, 15.0 years [range, 11.1-18.6] and 16.1 years [range, 10.1-17.9]). After a median duration of 0.8 years (0.3-3.8) on GnRHa, 125 (87%) started gender-affirming hormones (GAH). Nine (6%) discontinued GnRHa, five of whom no longer wished gender-affirming treatment. Thirteen had used GnRHa for longer than required by protocol for reasons other than logistics and regularly met with a mental health professional during this time, supporting the use of GnRHa treatment as an extended diagnostic phase. In conclusion, the vast majority who started GnRHa proceeded to GAH, possibly due to eligibility criteria that select those highly likely to pursue further gender-affirming treatment. Due to the observational character of the study, it is not possible to say if GnRHa treatment itself influenced the outcome. Few individuals discontinued GnRHa, and only 3.5% no longer wished gender-affirming treatment.

Conclusion

A small number of adolescents discontinued GnRHa because they no longer wished gender-affirming treatment, showing that gender identity can still fluctuate on GnRHa in some adolescents; whether gender dysphoria would have subsided in more of them without GnRHa is uncertain. Some used GnRHa for a prolonged period while regularly meeting a mental health professional, consistent with GnRHa as an extended diagnostic phase. The great majority continued to gender-affirming hormones, possibly because eligibility criteria select those highly likely to pursue further treatment, and this should be taken into account when counselling adolescents and parents.

Methodological limitations

No comparison group: The study did not include teens who went without blockers. So it cannot tell whether the 87% who moved on had settled identities, were carefully chosen, or were pushed further along the path by the blockers themselves. The authors say this openly.
Based on old medical files: What happened to each teen, and why some stopped, came from routine clinic notes. If notes were incomplete or unclear, the reasons recorded may be wrong or missing.
Short follow-up: Teens were only tracked until they started hormones or until July 2019. The authors note gender distress might return in those who stopped, and nobody checked whether those who continued later detransitioned.
Some results unknown: Six teens moved to other clinics and five were not yet old enough for hormones when data were collected, so we do not know what happened to them.
Only pre-screened teens: A third of teens old enough were not given blockers, including those without a confirmed diagnosis and those with other problems. The results only apply to a carefully chosen group.
Small, single clinic: 143 patients from one Dutch clinic, with only 9 who stopped, gives rough numbers that may not hold for other clinics or countries.
Treatment came late: Many trans boys started blockers at about 16, when puberty is mostly finished. So the idea of a "pause to explore" barely applied, and some patients told the team blockers added nothing at that stage.
No health results measured: The study only reports which path teens took. It did not measure mental health, bone strength, thinking skills or sexual development, so it says nothing about benefit or harm.
Rules changed during the study: The clinic lowered the age for starting hormones in 2016 and 2017. This changed how long teens stayed on blockers and makes the time on blockers harder to interpret.
Authors have ties to the treatment: Two authors (M.C. de Vries and S.E. Hannema) were paid for talks by Ferring, a drug company, and all the authors work at the clinic that gives the treatment.

detrans.ai

Summary

Key findings

Abstract

Conclusion